Women contribute important insights in agricultural research. Whether as government researchers, university professors, or senior research managers, their skills and perspectives are essential for addressing the unique and pressing challenges of all farmers, particularly female farmers. In addition, recruiting from only male candidate pools hampers efforts by African agricultural research agencies to hire the best candidates, regardless of sex.

These are a few of many good reasons why African countries should ensure that women are well represented among their agricultural researchers.

The number of women researchers rose in both absolute and relative terms between 2008 and 2014—and in 2014, an average of 24 percent of full time equivalent researchers in a sample of 40 African countries were female.

Obviously there is much more progress to be made. An in-depth look at the data reveals that representation varies widely between countries, and women tend to be in less senior positions.

What obstacles are women agricultural researchers facing? What can help overcome them? ASTI’s gender-specific data provides an illustration, but much more information is needed to answer these questions. Success for African farmers—both male and female—depends on it.

Countries in Africa south of the Sahara (SSA) are vastly underinvesting in agricultural research, an area proven to have positive impacts on agricultural productivity, incomes, nutrition, and food security. But how much, exactly, should they be investing? The answer has traditionally been a target set by the African Union and United Nations that assumes national investments should be proportional to the size of the country’s agricultural sector in all cases: at least 1 percent of the country’s agricultural gross domestic product (AgGDP).

However, as a recent blog described, ASTI has produced a new, more nuanced method for determining agricultural research investment targets that are most appropriate and attainable for each country. The measure is based on the argument that smaller, more agroecologically diverse countries have different research investment needs than larger ones with more homogeneous agricultural landscapes.

The new measure that ASTI developed—the ASTI intensity index—adds four additional weighted ratios to the mix: those related to the size of the country’s economy, its income, its potential for “spill-over” use of knowledge produced by its neighbors, and the diversification of its agricultural outputs.

As the recently published 2017 ASTI Synthesis Report illustrates, this country-tailored measure provides a fresh perspective on the state and extent of agricultural research underinvestment in SSA.

First, it debunks the myth that all countries must invest at least 1 percent of their AgGDP. For many SSA countries, the 1 percent investment target is simply unattainable—and not worth striving for. In Ethiopia and Nigeria, for example, investment targets of around 0.4 to 0.5 percent of AgGDP would be much more realistic. Likewise, countries like Ghana, Kenya, Mauritius, Namibia, Uganda, and Zimbabwe are already investing very close to their optimal levels, regardless of their varying distance to the traditional target.

Small countries like the Republic of Congo, Gabon, Lesotho, and Swaziland, however, should be able to reach intensity ratios much higher than the traditional target: between 2.5 and 4 percent of AgGDP. Irrespective of which intensity measure is used, many francophone countries are significantly underinvesting in agricultural research. These include Chad, Gabon, Guinea, Madagascar, Niger, and Togo.

Another important use of the intensity index is to calculate the agricultural research investment gap: the difference between a country’s actual level of research investment and its estimated attainable investment level, as measured by the highest investment level among comparable countries. Based on this calculation, regional investment in agricultural research in 2014 could have totaled $4 billion (in 2011 dollars adjusted for purchasing power parity)—a great deal more than the $2.5 billion the region actually invested that year.

In other words, the region’s gap between actual and estimated attainable investment in agricultural research was $1.5 billion in 2014 alone. Previous years saw similar gaps.

This raises an interesting question: what might African productivity look like today had all these billions been spent?

ASTI’s latest data collection and analysis from Africa south of the Sahara (SSA) exposes a persistent problem and a drag on sustainable development efforts: Growth in research spending is lower than for other kinds of agricultural investment.

Why is this happening, and can anything be done to reverse this imbalance?

Under the 2003 Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP), countries committed to spend at least 10 percent of their budgets on agriculture, with the goal of achieving 6 percent annual growth in their agricultural sectors. In 2014 in Malabo, Equatorial Guinea, heads of state reaffirmed their support and confirmed that additional investment was needed to meet this target.

The good news is that substantial progress has been made towards these goals.

After a long period of neglect, SSA governments on average more than doubled their investments in inflation-adjusted terms during 2000-2014. Many SSA countries ramped up investments in areas such as farm support and subsidies, training, irrigation, and extension. However, growth in agricultural research investments fell behind.

There is well-documented evidence that agricultural research investments in SSA offer high returns compared with investments in other agricultural inputs. So why aren’t African countries investing more in an area that would both benefit their economies, and help them reach their CAADP growth targets?

Lag time. The returns to investment in agricultural research are substantial, but are realized in the longer-term. Policy makers have more incentive to steer investments towards areas where they can show constituents results within the time frame of their terms of office.

Farmers lack political clout. Though they are the main beneficiaries of agricultural research, farmers are not in an ideal situation to advocate for increased spending. Although smallholder farmers constitute a significant share of Africa’s population, they are widely dispersed. Many also lack the social, economic, and educational resources to engage in collective action to effect policy change.

Donors rank other goals higher. Since the 1990s, donor priorities have focused on structural adjustment reform and privatizing public activities, which diverted funding from agricultural research.

Government research budgets focus on the short-term. A country’s budget process itself can be a barrier to the funding of agricultural research agencies. Rather than determining budgets based on a thorough assessment of a country’s long-term research needs, governments often allocate funds on a fixed, incremental schedule.

So what can be done? Raising awareness of these political roadblocks is the first step. Another task for policy makers and research agency leaders is to diversify their funding sources, to avoid over-reliance on donors. Some research agencies, for example, have been able to raise funds from the sale of goods and services, taxes on commodities, or private sector investment. These sources will differ by country, but the importance of including research in the agricultural investment mix holds true for all countries in SSA, especially as they strive to reduce poverty and hunger through their CAADP investment commitments.

See more findings and analysis of research investments in SSA in the full report.

This new report—and related data and analysis—finds that, although SSA countries have made progress honoring regionwide commitments to agricultural support such as outlined in the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP), growth in agricultural research investments has lagged considerably behind spending on other agricultural areas, such as farm support, subsidies, and irrigation.

The data cover key indicators on agricultural research investments, human resource capacity, and research outputs in the region. The report highlights various challenges:

Agricultural research spending and human resource capacity both grew in SSA as a whole during 2000–2014, but results were uneven.

Underinvestment in agricultural research continued and many countries remained dependent on volatile donor funding.

In a large number of countries, a high proportion of agricultural researchers qualified to the PhD-level is approaching retirement age. This, combined with high shares of more recently recruited junior staff, could result in significant knowledge gaps and jeopardize future research outputs.

Outdated research facilities and equipment are impeding the conduct of productive research.

Taking into account these challenges, the report outlines a number of policy implications for SSA governments.

ASTI analysis has also resulted in new national spending targets for agricultural research, based on characteristics of each country’s economy and agricultural sector. The report finds that certain countries are close to their attainable investment levels, while others have the potential to invest much more.

New tools, platforms, and activities were among the topics of discussion at a recent gathering of ASTI’s national focal points from Africa and South Asia.

The review and strategizing workshop—which followed the completion of data collection rounds in the two regions, and marked the mid-way point of a 4-year phase funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation—took place November 21-22 in lush garden surroundings near Uganda’s Lake Victoria.

With attendees from anglophone and francophone African countries, as well as Bangladesh, India, Nepal, and Pakistan, the event marked the first time ASTI has joined national focal points from several regions, speaking several languages. The result was two days of lively discussion and cross-country learning and networking—with some fun social time as well.

As new survey rounds are set to begin in 2017, the ASTI/IFPRI team took the opportunity to gather feedback on a number of new developments, including an online method of collecting data, online access to agency-level data, and new methodologies for analyzing a country’s investment in agricultural research (the “ASTI intensity index”) and the health of its agricultural research system.

The team also announced the launch of a new activity, the ASTI Country-level Impact Project, which will examine how ASTI data is being used to inform national agricultural research policy, and how these efforts can be enhanced. This groundbreaking, two-year project will develop and test impact strategies in three pilot countries—Ethiopia, Nigeria, and Tanzania—with the aim to create an adaptable framework for the other countries where ASTI works.

One of the most exciting new developments is ASTI Connect, an online platform specifically designed for country focal points. The platform includes a tool to analyze detailed data from national research agencies, a new online survey manager to help focal points more easily upload completed survey forms, and a library of training and capacity building resources.

Most innovative is the platform’s “community” section: a kind of Facebook for ASTI focal points. Here collaborators from IFPRI and partner countries can post questions, comments, event announcements, and impact stories—and any platform member can respond.

The workshop was also a chance for ASTI collaborators to listen to each other, and many participants shared stories of how the data has made a difference in their country.

For example, in Ethiopia, ASTI data helped influence decisions to upgrade researchers to the PhD level, increase the national budget for research, and more than double salary and benefits for agricultural researchers. In Burundi, ASTI data led the national agricultural research institute to create a staff training plan, and currently three of its researchers are pursuing PhD degrees. And in Kenya and Swaziland, ASTI data has contributed to the reform and restructuring of the national agricultural research systems.

Participants shared these and other experiences both in workshop discussions and at a lively poolside reception—and promised to continue the conversation online, saying “see you on ASTI Connect!”

A new Discussion Paper by ASTI research fellow Alejandro Nin-Pratt argues that the traditional method for measuring the intensity of a country's investment in agricultural research is inadequate, and proposes an alternative method that allows for meaningful comparisons between countries.

Traditionally, a country's agricultural research efforts have been calculated with the intensity ratio: the measure of agricultural research spending as a share of agricultural GDP. Although this indicator could provide useful insights into relative investment levels over time for particular countries, Nin-Pratt argues it does not take into account deciding factors other than agriculture that affect potential levels of investment. The new ASTI intensity index is a weighted measure that combines agricultural research spending as a share of agricultural GDP with four additional weighted intensity ratios related to the size of the country’s economy, its income, its capacity to take advantage of the knowledge produced by other countries, and the degree of output diversification in agriculture.

This improved measure provides a very different picture of international agricultural research investment intensity, with countries such as Brazil, China, Kenya, and India showing levels of research investment intensity similar to those of the USA.

ASTI and the IFPRI-facilitated ReSAKSS program co-organized a side event at this global conference that brought together representatives from regional and international agricultural research and donor organizations to discuss the book, which lays out a comprehensive perspective on the evolution, current status, and future goals of agricultural research in Africa south of the Sahara.

Two of the book editors— ASTI’s Nienke Beintema and John Lynam from the World Agroforestry Center—opened the event with a highlight of the book’s findings.

The book’s messages about agricultural research in the region are both concerning and hopeful. Total agricultural research spending has been increasing, along with the number of researchers, but spending growth is uneven, underinvestment remains widespread, and external funding is volatile. In addition, human resource capacities in many countries have been hampered by aging and high turnover among research staff.

However, there are many opportunities that countries can capitalize on to move from a land-extensive to a high-efficiency production model. New technologies, more efficient market supply systems, expanded service deliveries and incentivized policy environments are already taking shape in many countries. And there are a number of existing platforms and networks to help countries make these changes, for example, the commitments to strategic and scientific plans by the African Union, African Development Bank, and the Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA); efforts by the Regional Universities Forum for Capacity Building in Agriculture (RUFORUM) to expand higher education into West Africa; and of course the partnerships and support provided by the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA).

The floor then opened for a broad discussion by a panel of thought leaders and key players in Africa’s agricultural development, moderated by IFPRI Director for Africa Ousmane Badiane, also one of the book editors. The panelists— Augustin Wambo from NEPAD’s Planning and Coordinating Agency, Ernest Ruzindaza from the African Union Commission, Yemi Akinbamijo from FARA, and Heike Baumüller from the Center for Development Research at the University of Bonn (ZEF)—spoke about the actions required to unlock the potential of African science and technology.

The panelists cut through generalities and offered concrete suggestions: plan and formulate long-term fiscal budgets; consider the needs of farmers; study and learn from the success of the private sector; show the productivity impact of every research dollar; hold governments accountable with scorecards.

Representing the donor side, ZEF’s Heike urged governments to think more widely than just increasing productivity, reminding the audience that it is only a means to achieving the ultimate result of ending malnutrition.

Despite the challenges, attendees remained optimistic about the possibility of increasing agricultural productivity—and thus nutrition security and incomes—through research.

As FARA’s Akinbamijo summed up, “Improving productivity is not rocket science, but it requires science.”

India is expected to be the world’s most populous country in six short years. Is its agriculture sector prepared to feed its growing population?

More than 40 management-level researchers and university representatives from various parts of India gathered last month to discuss what the latest ASTI data reveals.

The event, which took place August 17 in New Delhi, presented data on agricultural research spending, human capacity, and outputs based on results from a survey ASTI conducted in collaboration with the National Academy of Agricultural Research Management (NAARM).

Photo: Arsheen Kaur

PK Joshi from IFPRI’s New Delhi Office, Ganesh Kumar and Kalpana Sastry from NAARM, and Gert-Jan Stads from ASTI set the stage and shared results, while experts from the National Institution for Transforming India (NITI Aayog), the Agricultural Economics Research Association (AERA), the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), the National Academy of Agricultural Sciences (NAAS), and others offered insights on key issues and challenges.

The data offer a lot of good news: India has one of the best-staffed agricultural research and development systems in the world with three quarters of its 12,750 government agency and university-based researchers holding PhD degrees. After a gradual decline in the first decade of the 2000s, the establishment of new universities and colleges has led to a rebound in research capacity in more recent years.

Despite these positive trends, however, challenges remain. In 2014, India invested just 0.30 percent of its AgGDP in agricultural research. The government’s current goal to spend at least 1 percent of its agricultural GDP on research and education by 2017 appears unrealistic. Recent increases in agricultural research spending were largely driven by rising salary costs, rather than costs supporting actual research programs and infrastructure. There is also a strong gender imbalance among agricultural researchers, with women making up only 18 percent of agricultural researchers and being largely absent in management positions.

India’s private sector has an important role to play in agricultural research and development— in 2009, for example, it supplied an estimated 20 percent of the country’s agricultural research spending. But much remains unknown about sector’s impact on food security, poverty, and other development goals. Speakers agreed that accurate and timely data on private sector spending in India’s agricultural research is critically needed.

According to a report released by NAARM, agriculture is the most important sector of the Indian economy – a source of employment for more than half the workforce and of income for rural Indians who make up the vast majority of the population. India’s remarkable transformation from a net importer to a net exporter of staple food has happened largely thanks to research that produced new technologies for increased productivity.

The ASTI data presented in New Delhi makes the case for continuing this research, with policy support and funding, to feed this growing nation’s people.

Over the past years, ASTI’s website use has increased dramatically. Not only are more people accessing agriculture R&D indicators and publications from the website, but the audience itself has changed as well.

For example, in 2010 the website had 1,239 visitors per month. That increased to 6,150 by 2015. About two-thirds of those visitors are from Africa and Asia; from 40% in 2011.

ASTI website statistics 2010 to 2015

Year

Visitors per month

Visitors per year

Page views

2010

1,239

14,868

77,546

2011

2,119

25,428

102,258

2012

2,345

28,145

110,459

2013

3,143

37,713

115,231

2014

4,707

56,482

148,657

2015

6,150

74,037

199,222

Another interesting revelation is the rise in mobile usage – a full quarter of our online audience (26%) is accessing the ASTI website from their mobile device.

What is behind this growing trend?

According to ASTI webmaster Tony Murray, a large part of the increase in Asia and Africa is due to the rise in connectivity in developing countries. “The increased share of users from Africa and Asia is not only an ASTI phenomenon, but something you see on international websites worldwide,” said Murray. “Not so long ago, you had to go to the only internet café in town to check your email, whereas now, wifi is almost everywhere in Africa.”

The redesigned site, with new interactive tools, also played a part. The interactive tools, launched in 2015, allow users to engage with the interactive data, compare countries and regions, and download custom datasets.

The challenge for ASTI going forward is to increase its Spanish and French speaking visitors. A new Spanish language site, which went live last April when the new data for Latin America and the Caribbean was launched, will help reach that audience.